May 6, 2008

Mildred Loving has died at the age of 68. It seems odd that she was only 68. Loving v. Virginia — the case in which the Supreme Court struck down a law that banned interracial marriages — ought to have been decided a long, long time ago. But it was not.

By their own widely reported accounts, Mrs. Loving and her husband, Richard, were in bed in their modest house in Central Point in the early morning of July 11, 1958, five weeks after their wedding, when the county sheriff and two deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom and shined flashlights in their eyes. A threatening voice demanded, “Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?”

Mrs. Loving answered, “I’m his wife.”

Mr. Loving pointed to the couple’s marriage certificate hung on the bedroom wall. The sheriff responded, “That’s no good here.”...

After Mr. Loving spent a night in jail and his wife several more, the couple pleaded guilty to violating the Virginia law, the Racial Integrity Act. Under a plea bargain, their one-year prison sentences were suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together or at the same time for 25 years.

Judge Leon M. Bazile, in language Chief Justice Warren would recall, said that if God had meant for whites and blacks to mix, he would have not placed them on different continents. Judge Bazile reminded the defendants that “as long as you live you will be known as a felon.”

They paid court fees of $36.29 each, moved to Washington and had three children. They returned home occasionally, never together. But times were tough financially, and the Lovings missed family, friends and their easy country lifestyle in the rolling Virginia hills.

By 1963, Mrs. Loving could stand the ostracism no longer. Inspired by the civil rights movement and its march on Washington, she wrote Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and asked for help. He wrote her back, and referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The A.C.L.U. took the case. Its lawyers, Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, faced an immediate problem: the Lovings had pleaded guilty and had no right to appeal. So they asked Judge Bazile to set aside his original verdict. When he refused, they appealed. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, and the case went to the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Cohen recounted telling Mr. Loving about various legal theories applying to the case. Mr. Loving replied, “Mr. Cohen, tell the court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can’t live with her in Virginia.”

Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of islam infamously worked with George Lincoln Rockwell of the American Nazi Party (who actually addressed the NOI in 1961 and 1962), because both organizations were opposed to racial integration and both supported a separate state only for black people.

But this case was certainly primarily evidence of white racism. Now my daughter, who is white, can go on a date with her black boyfriend in a southern state and no one says a damned thing. Much. Actually, she had to drop a few white girlfriends who objected to him, and then had to endure the criticism of a few black girlfriends who objected to her.

Pogo, my opinion is that there's a bit of a difference between friends objecting to your date (or who you marry) and the government controlling who you can marry. So it's not the same thing; things have changed for the better.

I thought it interesting that Mr. Loving started dating his future wife when she was 11 (!!) and he was 17. Had my daughter been dating a 17-yo when she was 11 I would have been flipping out.

Dude I'm gonna call you Spencer Tracy. Does that mean you are boning a painfully skinny Protestant chick on the side who shakes like she has Parkinsons? Sweet. You just have to climb on an let her shake like a washing machine on a bad spin cycle. Way sweet.

What has not changed all that much in some regions are attitudes, from both blacks and whites, about the 'mixing of races'. And this is true all over the world. Some areas are very tolerant, some intolerant. Such has it always been.

I mention this only to show this wasn't some invention by white people.

Please show me where in the constitution I can find "the right of a white person to marry a black person". Obviously this was not the original intent of the writers of the Constitution. And I doubt it was the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment, as interracial marriage was illegal in almost every state at the time.

Obviously, at least according to Roberts and Thomas and Scalia and Alito, this is a disgusting example of judicial activism.

And Pogo's daughter is a sicko, peverted slut - and her actions are an afront to the Bible and an attack on civilization. If she wants to have sex with a black man - please do it behind closed doors. It is disgusting that she is forcing her peverted beliefs on innocent Americans. What if children seeing them walking down the street? The Bible is very clear that interracial marriage is sinful.

I'm black, my wife is white. We've been married since 03 and dating since 97. I can't decide if things have gotten better or I just tune it out more. We live in Texas, and even in smaller towns we have had nothing worse than a couple of glares. Much of the time people just don't put us together -- when I go out to eat with my wife and my in laws -- the hostess always subtracts me from the count and then asks me "Table for one?" My mother in law thinks its hilarious, my father in law gets really upset.

We did lose a couple of friends at the beginning though... but obviously you are better off without a friend like that.

When I was 15 years old, my father set me down one day and told me no matter who I married, he and my mother would be on my side (their own marriage had been fraught with objections).

"Even if he's black, that's fine."

These words are seared in my mind, because he so rarely opened up about anything and never spoke about race, good or bad.

When I dated a black Haitian, he surprised me one day by telling me he didn't consider himself black.

Like Mrs. Loving, who apparently "[...] was part Rappahannock Indian, and her father was part Cherokee. She preferred to think of herself as Indian rather than black.", he considered himself Lebanese because a hundred years back, one of his ancestors had been.

It's a very fraught topic, which underlies anything to do with so-called miscegenation.

(We remained friends, BTW. He's a pharmacist in NC today. His wife is white)

One day my wife and I figured out that we were each 1/64th Cherokee. Shortly thereafter, we were out with a big group of people and joked that this was not an interracial relationship because we were both the same percentage Cherokee -- it was very telling who thought that joke was funny and who did not find that funny AT ALL and made it very clear they did not find it funny.

In Brazil, the other country I've lived in other than America with a sizeable black population, black people are routinely stopped from entering fine hotels, and famously, Pelé, the national icon, was stopped by a Policia Militar (PM) because he was driving his gold Merc.

If his white wife had been in the car, a friend later commented, he wouldn't have been stopped because they would've assumed he was her driver.

Florence King, the writer, lesbian, and comedic misanthrope wrote this about gay marriage vs. interracial marriage, in 1996

"To liberals, the just-because mindset betokens racism. Therefore, anyone who opposes gay marriage must hate blacks. Anti-gay marriage laws will be equated with the old anti-miscegenation laws, producing tortured sophistry about "the difference between race and sex." The liberal will claim that all differences are the same, forcing the conservative to claim that some differences are more different than others. Caught in an Orwellian trap, terrified of being called a racist, he will seek safety in a soundbite of chortling folksiness. ...

Soon, Republicans panicked by mounting accusations of racism suggest that gay couples be allowed to register their unions and establish common-law marriages based on seven years of cohabitation. But gays reject these half measures, comparing them to the irregular marriages of slavery, when couples "jumped over the broom."

All attempts at compromise elicit cries of "Second-class marriage!" and lead to lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Calling themselves "connubially challenged," gays will sue the Christian Coalition for forcing them to lead immoral lives. Arguing that marriage will keep them from promiscuity, which will keep them from getting AIDS, they will equate prohibition of same-sex marriage with capital punishment. A Clinton judicial appointee will find the "right" to gay marriage lurking under a constitutional penumbra, and CNN will give a 900 number so viewers can vote yes to prove they aren't racists.

I find it ironic that gays are now singing the praises of wedded bliss in terms that were the bane of my existence forty years ago, when "settling down" proved you were "mature and responsible." If they keep it up, they will corroborate the English prostitute who plied her trade in the States and wound up in a book about American sexual attitudes. A great many of her clients, she said, showed her photos of their wives and children. Clearly bemused, her sigh almost audible on the page, she added: "Yanks are born married."

My personal opinion of marriage reflects my status as a pariah in the Fifties snuggery of joined-at-the-hip Togetherness. "Rather a beggar woman and single be, than Queen and married," said Elizabeth I, and so say I. My objective opinion, however, conforms with Timothy Dwight: "It is incomparably better that individuals should suffer than that an institution, which is the basis of all human good, should be shaken or endangered."

who did not find that funny AT ALL and made it very clear they did not find it funny.

I can imagine, Blue Moon! Fancy their surprise.

There's another side to this too. It's always puzzling to find racists in this country, who proudly tout their indian heritage.

My ex-car mechanic was like that, until I pointed out to him that in Europe, he would no longer be considered white. The look on his face...

I don't care a hoot about that, nor do I think that's the case.

But since it was obvious he did (as I had to listen to hours of his racist patter before I finally bolted), I wanted to make it absolutely plain to him how some "Europeans" (read, his precious white people) would view him.

Florence King is not a lesbian. Try again. She's a self-loathing bisexual. And she also wrote for the National Review, has attacked all kinds of gay rights. Is that the best you can do?

Face it Pogo - You want to pretend you're tolerant, but typical fascist that you are, you insist on controlling people's personal lives. And you make idiotic statements such as "Your wishes and desires are subordinate, and matter very little. Destroy that connection between marriage and children, and destroy the society."

Fact is that your judicial philosophy doesn't allow for a decision like Loving V. Virginia. The same goes for the right-wing on the court today. Had they been on the court in 1967, the Loving marriage would not have been allowed.

The post is about the history of marriage rights in this country -- and DTL's right, there is no right for a black person to marry a white person spelled out in our constitution, and that very argument is put forth here regularly when the topic is gay marriage. He's not hijacking anything. Too bad that makes y'all uncomfortable.

Pogo, I get a kick every time you haul out Florence King. It's like you have your magic lesbian to wave and say, "See! Here's a lesbian and she doesn't want to get married! She doesn't bother everyone about gay rights!" So fucking what? She's a funny writer, but she's a humonguous ass kisser. Her purpose in life is to make straight people feel okay about not supporting gay rights but still be able to say they know and like a lesbian. She's a dyke Uncle Tom.

"and DTL's right, there is no right for a black person to marry a white person spelled out in our constitution, and that very argument is put forth here regularly when the topic is gay marriage. He's not hijacking anything. Too bad that makes y'all uncomfortable."

Does it make you uncomfortable when dtl refers to Pogo's daughter's black boyfriend as "jungle loving"? Or is the enemy of your enemy your friend, no matter how repulsive? I expect better from you than that Beth. Do you really need dtl the psychopathic self-hating clown to make arguments for you?

Jesus on roller skates.Never expected that out of you. Much less support for DTL.You in with his "Jungle Love" comment too?

I like King because she's funny, smart, conservative, and a misanthrope, in that order. I don't give a damn about her being lesbian at all, but I do indeed use it as a stick to show that not all gays align the way some would wish. It makes some gays go all wickety wack with anger for the audacity to step off the reservation.

Palladian, obviously DTL's rhetoric is over the top and offensive. That's a given. But the reactions here aren't focusing on that. Blue Moon says "stop hijacking the thread." Pogo hauls out crusty, old, self-loathing Flo King -- that's what I'm addressing. They're pissed that DTL pointed out the obvious, that their high-fiving over the Loving case and their wonderful progressive attitudes on race are in direct contradiction to the very arguments many of them pose when the topic gays marrying. He's right; the Loving decision doesn't fit the political philosophy they embrace.

DTL's problem is that his style always becomes the issue, rather than the substance. But here, he's right on the substance. I'd expect you to be able to see that, Palladian, as long as we're being generous with our expectation.

Being gay is not the same as being black. If gay people want the right to marry, then they can use the levers of democracy to do so. I really do not care one way or another. In fact, I am much less offended by gays co-habitating than unmarried staights co-habitating because at least there will be no out of wedlock kids running around.

But lets stop pretending that sexual orientation is the same as the pigment of my skin. It ain't.

Blue Moon -- certainly, I'm not comparing bigotry against gay people qualitatively to the history of racism in America, in the legal and social bigotry against slaves, former slaves and the descendants of slaves.

But prejudice against people for an immutable characteristic is the same; stop pretending it isn't. You don't have a patent on civil rights.

Some time back I dated a dark-skinned Puerto Rican woman. She was a nurse manager who lived in a doorman building in NYC. When she was in uniform, the other tenants would sometimes ask her in the elevator about her rates for cleaning their apartment. When we went out, I don't remember attracting any stares. One time in an expensive restaurant, the manager apologized profusely for sitting us near the kitchen. Altogether it was a kind of confusing experience....Incidentally I think the dividing line among women is not rich/poor, black/white. smart/dumb. The dividing line is attractive/unattractive. Sex trumps all known prejudices.

I don't no where you "traditional" marriage supporters come up with these fantasies. Marriage, throughout most of the history of mankind, still in many places, and even in western society until very recently (say the last couple hundred years or so), has primarily been a property transaction--and very often the bride was considered part of the property being traded.

Marriage has been used to solidify and formalize alliances, ensure bloodlines, formalize property transfers, and tighten bonds between communities and families. The wishes or the welfare of the women involved was of very little interest to anyone involved.

Incidentally I think the dividing line among women is not rich/poor, black/white. smart/dumb. The dividing line is attractive/unattractive. Sex trumps all known prejudices.

To haul this thread back to the topic of race and consequent marriage, I'd say that is correct, William.

Save that in the US and other "Anglo-Saxon" countries, white males are not as likely to cohabit/marry with black females, as white females do black males.

Again, pulling out my Brazil experiences, white Portuguese men are famous for seeking out black or mixed women to marry. Their miscegenation history is predicated on that.

Since race theories (tortured and contradictory as ever) held that the child took his race from his male parent, the child was co-opted into the caucasian sphere, therefore making it "no big deal", as it were.

It is telling this Loving v. Virginia case was decided on exactly such an union, and not what is more socially common in America, white female/black male.

I suppose for the racists of that time, such an union posed a much bigger threat than say, Jack Johnson being nabbed for the Mann Act for marrying white women.

Marriage, throughout most of the history of mankind, still in many places, and even in western society until very recently (say the last couple hundred years or so), has primarily been a property transaction--and very often the bride was considered part of the property being traded.

Marriage has been used to solidify and formalize alliances, ensure bloodlines, formalize property transfers, and tighten bonds between communities and families. The wishes or the welfare of the women involved was of very little interest to anyone involved.

Freder is quite correct. Until just the last 50 years or so, marriage was never much for the convenience of the female, especially in the 'privileged' classes. Pretty much no one cared about the marriages or non marriages of the poor or non-landed classes.

Today marriage is now a legal contract for the masses that includes monitary concerns, social security, retirement plans, taxes, custody of children, property ownership, liabilities and so on.

I see no reason for the government to dictate who can or cannot get married in a civil ceremony. I do see that the various Churches and their parishoners have the right to decline to bless unions that they fundamentally disagree with. Don't like it? Change churches. It's called freedom of religion and there is also something called freedom of association.

I do see that the various Churches and their parishoners have the right to decline to bless unions that they fundamentally disagree with.

And there is nowhere in this country where clergy licensed to perform marriages is going to be forced to marry anyone he or she doesn't want to (e.g., a Catholic priest can refuse to perform a marriage for non-Catholics or even Catholics who have been previously married--no state agency is going to interfere with his decision). This is the situation as it stands now and there is no reason to believe it would be otherwise even if gay marriage were legalized in all 50 states.

Even with Loving a minister could refuse to marry a mixed race couple, state the reason he refused to do so is he didn't believe in the mixing of the races (even if it was based on personal, not religious beliefs), and there is absolutely nothing the couple could do about it. (Of course if the county courthouse refused to marry them that would be a whole different issue).

The vitriol one gets for expressing anything but PC slogans is ominous and disappointing, especially when coming from supposedly 'liberal' thinkers.

Boo hoo Pogo! It always amazes me that the conservatives on this site can hurl all the invective, vitriol outright racism they want and they get away with it. Ann never censors or censures them or warns them about ad hominum attacks. Cedarford can spew all the racist, anti-semitic nonsense he wants and tout his eugenics til the cows come home.

But God forbid the liberals who post here hurl an occasional, or even frequent, insult back, call people to the carpet for their frequent homophobic and racist comments, or call people liars. Suddenly we are hurting your feelings and being mean.

Of course the worst offense is telling Ann she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about when she comes up with completely incoherent and indefensible standards and confuses First Amendment jurisprudence with EEO law.

I thought it interesting that Mr. Loving started dating his future wife when she was 11 (!!) and he was 17. Had my daughter been dating a 17-yo when she was 11 I would have been flipping out.

The article didn't say they started dating at 11 and 17, but that they "started spending time together". I assume they phrased it that way because the two didn't have any official relationship - friendship, dating or otherwise - but were around each other for various reasons as early as that age.

My two year old spends time with an 11 year old boy. I am unconcerned. At the same time, she is spending time with a one year old girl, several five to six year old boys, a few nine year olds and a couple of 15 - 16 year olds.

As far as DTL goes, it's not his underlying point that is hijacking the thread but statements like And Pogo's daughter is a sicko, peverted slut blah blah blah Yah, I get that he's channeling what he thinks other commenters here would say about gay marriage. But, of course they haven't said that. And it's no more acceptable to sarcastically spew that kind of crap as it is to type it out in earnest.

That said, I agree that I don't see how the Constitution protects interracial marriages but not same sex marriages.

This is the situation as it stands now and there is no reason to believe it would be otherwise even if gay marriage were legalized in all 50 states.

Nevertheless, there is a steady pressure from gay activists to try to force churches to accept homosexual and lesbian marriages. I believe that it is this pressure and interference with religions internal workings, that is creating the 'push back' against their movement. This and the agenda driven educational programs that are being crammed down the throats of 3rd grades without the consent of and behing the backs of their parents.

And for Beth: baby steps, baby steps, have patience. Shoving controversial or new ideas at people only creates more resistance. Racial predjudice in mixed marriages has taken generations to get to the level of acceptance that it has now. There is still a distance to go but, where I live it is completely unremarkable to mingle with mixed race couples or with same sex couples.

DBQ: "I see no reason for the government to dictate who can or cannot get married in a civil ceremony. I do see that the various Churches and their parishoners have the right to decline to bless unions that they fundamentally disagree with."

This is a good summation of my position, DBQ. Church ceremonies are certainly the purview of the various faiths.

Pogo, you're going to have to 'splain to me how a bunch of adult men collecting and impregnating 13-year-old girls held captive in compounds is analagous to any consensual commitment between any two adults.

Nevertheless, there is a steady pressure from gay activists to try to force churches to accept homosexual and lesbian marriages.

Well, in the reform tradition, the laity, not the priesthood, decides on the policies of the Church. What is wrong with Gay and Lesbian members of the UCC or the Prebyterian Church working to change the policies of their denominations? This freedom and belief in lay control over dogma is exactly why they rejected the Roman and Orthodox model in the first place.

Like you said. "Don't like it? Change churches." If you don't like the direction your church is going, find a different one.

Victoria, wikipedia, citing the U.S. Census, backs up your anecdotal observation about interracial marriages: they indicate that white husband-black wife couples number 117,000 in the U.S, while black husband-white wife couples number 286,000. I would think that's an even more significant difference when you figure in the ratio of black to white men in the U.S. Interestingly, there are 530,000 pairings of white husbands-Asian wives, and 489,000 with "other wives" -- my brain is working overtime trying to think of what falls into "other" in such high numbers.

Would you please read the book and find out who Uncle Tom really is. This is possibly the most incorrect insult ever concocted. If you manage to get past the first few chapters you will find out that Uncle Tom is not a sell-out a slavery apologist, or even a “happy negro.” Instead, he is a strong willed man who refuses an order from his master to whip another slave and is beaten within an inch of his life for his disobedience. He also orchestrates the escape of other slaves and when confronted with the escape, Tom (unlike the dutiful happy slave you seem to think he is) refuses to tell his master where they fled to. He allows himself to be beaten to death rather than give in.

You either have never read the book or you have a very different definition of “sell-out.”

But God forbid the liberals who post here hurl an occasional, or even frequent, insult back...

You're right.

I too often forget that people rarely argue from any point of principle (either named or implicit) any longer. It's all merely secondary to the fight for power, and the actual policies discussed are mere backdrop for that struggle.

I will try not make that same mistake here again. Or elsewhere.Well played, Freder et al. Coup counted.

Victoria, that's an interesting question. I'd bet the percentage of white on black rape was much higher during slavery. Currently, aren't most rapes committed by men done so against women of the same race? If power is a prime part of the motivation, then perhaps it's a very personal crime, i.e., from personal resentments held by the rapist, not necessarily against the particular target, but what she represents to him. It could also be about opportunity, proximity, availability.

I too often forget that people rarely argue from any point of principle (either named or implicit) any longer.

Spare me the holier than thou attitude Pogo. You hurl insults and invective with the best of them. You and Simon are both massive hypocrites. You pretend to be so genteel and above the fray and oh so offended when someone picks on you.

Get over it--and yourself. Maybe if you occasionally read what you wrote, you would understand why people are mean to you. Despite your pseudonym, you are no Walt Kelly.

In order to make any judgements about what (if any) role race plays into rape, you need to look at what a random distribution would be.

Say whites and blacks have the same propensity for rape and that the population is evenly mixed. Also, just to make the math easy, say blacks are 10% and Whites 90% of the population. Here is what you would get:

Beth said: "Currently, aren't most rapes committed by men done so against women of the same race?"

Indeed -- most crime victims are of the same "race" (whatever that means) as the offender. We are still an amazingly segregated society, and most rapes I encounter (I work in the criminal justice system) are crimes of opportunity (met a girl at party or bar, get her alone somehow...)

Victoria, that's an interesting question. I'd bet the percentage of white on black rape was much higher during slavery.

That's usually the answer given to that question, but the power dynamics are completely different between free men and women, and property/owner.

It's rather like the abuse a gaoler (jailer) has towards an inmate, where they are fair game because of their utter lack of power in that situation, and as you say, available, opportune, and close by.

Currently, aren't most rapes committed by men done so against women of the same race?

Absolutely. But there is a notable spike between black males on white females (though all rape is underreported).

We're getting into rather uncomfortable territory here, and I fear that my words will be misunderstood. Just to note to those less familiar about me, I approach things as a curiosity, not to make ideological (or God forbid, racial) points.

Anyway, I think Blue Moon's explanation, especially given his expertise, is the most comprehensive answer to this topic. :)

Please show me where in the constitution I can find "the right of a white person to marry a black person

There isn't one -- but Loving v. Virginia didn't say there was.

True, but his point as a whole is generally valid. When dealing with so-called fundamental rights not enumerated, the Scalias and Rehnquists of the world only seem to find those that have been "traditionally" held by the people. They use this line with regards to such "judicial constructs" as the right to abortion or the right to have gay sex in the privacy of one's own home.

Interracial marriage was certainly not a traditional right, as it had always been banned/severely frowned upon essentially everywhere. So the originalists/traditionalists may have a hard time justifying the differences there.

But seeing as I just finished a Con Law exam dealing with all of this, I have absolutely no desire to write anymore on this subject . . .

And that last line was not meant to sound snooty, I know my legal knowledge pales in comparison to many here. Just extremely sick of reading equal protection and due process cases, over and over again.

Interracial marriage was certainly not a traditional right, as it had always been banned/severely frowned upon essentially everywhere.

That's not even remotely true. People of different races had been marrying, and having their marriages recognized by society, for thousands of years. That's why Virginia had to explicitly make it illegal.

So the originalists/traditionalists may have a hard time justifying the differences there.

They have no difficulty at all. The originalist interpretation of the 14th amendment is that it was meant to ban racial discrimination by state governments. Virginia's miscegenation ban was explicitly discriminatory on racial grounds, and was in fact specifically enacted to BE so discriminatory -- which is why it was thrown out.

Also, anyone who posts comments here for a long enough time has a fully defined personality or persona that we are all hip too. We all are who we are and basically what we are all about is pretty much clear. But it would be nice if we could limit the personal attacks especially when family or other loved ones are involved. For example Titus often posts emotional comments about loved ones and his relationship to them. And he gets slammed pretty hard about them even though they seem heartfelt. That diminishes you whatever you beliefs might be. I hope we could cut each other a little slack and let the personal attacks remain the province of the politicians. Just sayn'